- From: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:49:25 -0600
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Tommy, As Dave D has correctly pointed out in the namespace issue, it is important to acknowledge that your sense of the tradeoff. Your description of the tradeoff is exactly what I was thinking as we discussed the issue. However, for me at least, it is a technical, not political, issue. > The gain in simplicity may outweigh the loss of functionality. As I view the scales, simplicity and the functionality of namegroups and namespaces out weigh the implementation costs associated with parameter entities. > I don't care for the implication that GI name groups substitute for > parameter entities. No, but they do provide for the most common usage of parameter entities that I am aware of. The other use that I would be alarmed if we lost is their use in modular DTDs. I believe that the ultimate "namespace" solution with fragments combined in the instance, not the DTD, will support this need. However, I do not use parameter entities often. Could you list other significant features that would be lost? Regards, Dave Hollander _________________________________________________________________ Dave Hollander Hewlett-Packard Intranet Architect 3404 E. Harmony Road, MS. 6U68 TIS/WebCOE Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 dmh@corp.hp.com 970-229-3192 __________________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 19 June 1997 17:58:24 UTC